Where the Mujahideen, freedom fighters vs the Soviets...and America's proxy ally via the CIA (in the 1980s) while in the 2000's they are the terrorists and the enemy of freedom everywhere, now?

Review your history. The "Mujahideen" was the name given to anyone oposing the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. After the soviets were expelled, the remaining "Mujahadeen" groups then engaged in a civil war to gain control over the country. The one that eventually gained control was the Taliban. Many of the other "Mujahideen" formed the Northern Alliance that opposed the Taliban and allied themselves with the Western forces during the UN sanctioned invasion.

Sometimes you need to actually learn the history, and not just watch the latest Tom Hanks movie to know the actual facts. :)

What do you think I typed, dude? It was a much briefer synopsis than you just hammered out (without the insults)!

And why do you feel the need to tell me in the manner you did, with your quotation marks for emphasis, to read/review and learn history?

I did not attempt to give you what you attempted to give us, a substandard Reader's Digest primer version of what's occurred in Afghanistan since 1979.

I assumed that most people have read and do understand where the term mujahideen was created from, for and when. I certainly have, and I was well aware of the history of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the aid to the the 'freedom fighters' by the American CIA...what a can of worms the Americans cultivated by supplying Stingers and other hardware and money to the Muj cause - as it then came back to bite not just American's but every opponent of the Taliban - right in our asses.

Where the Mujahideen, freedom fighters vs the Soviets...and America's proxy ally via the CIA (in the 1980s) while in the 2000's they are the terrorists and the enemy of freedom everywhere, now?

Review your history. The "Mujahideen" was the name given to anyone oposing the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. After the soviets were expelled, the remaining "Mujahadeen" groups then engaged in a civil war to gain control over the country. The one that eventually gained control was the Taliban. Many of the other "Mujahideen" formed the Northern Alliance that opposed the Taliban and allied themselves with the Western forces during the UN sanctioned invasion.

Sometimes you need to actually learn the history, and not just watch the latest Tom Hanks movie to know the actual facts. :)

What do you think I typed, dude? It was a much briefer synopsis than you just hammered out (without the insults)!

And why do you feel the need to tell me in the manner you did, with your quotation marks for emphasis, to read/review and learn history?

I did not attempt to give you what you attempted to give us, a substandard Reader's Digest primer version of what's occurred in Afghanistan since 1979.

I assumed that most people have read and do understand where the term mujahideen was created from, for and when. I certainly have, and I was well aware of the history of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the aid to the the 'freedom fighters' by the American CIA...what a can of worms the Americans cultivated by supplying Stingers and other hardware and money to the Muj cause - as it then came back to bite not just American's but every opponent of the Taliban - right in our asses.

I've been complaining about the US/CIA assistance to the the Afghans since the mid 1990s (for reasons which I am quite sure you don't even have clue one, why.)

Here's a hint too on the spelling, Damon.

Bring up a Google search page. Type in: Mujahadeen and watch as Google suggests the correct defacto spelling of Mujahideen.

You are certainly a king of passive aggressive baiting.

Passive aggressive? I didn't really see anything passive about it. I did feel a little bad after I wrote it though, and actually would have gone back and softened it if I had not been late for work this morning. It was an unfair assumption of your knowledge although it was nothing personal. And I do apologize for that.

Or, maybe I was just responding to your "generalization" of the Mujahideen.... :)

Did I spell it right that time? I actually didn't take you for the type to point out spelling mistakes. When it comes to debate, that particular tactic seems to be the last bastion of the hostile and ill-informed so I'm little surprised.

But...since you did mention it...I actually don't rely on Google for the majority of my information or knowledge, hence my perceived "slip up." And I do say "perceived" because the word "Mujahideen" is actually a transliteration from Arabic, and is thus spelled phonetically in many forms when written in English.

Actually, a good part of the revolutionaries' complaints were that the British soldiers were committing similar "terrorist" acts. Redcoats would move into a town, and just order things as they wanted. They would quarter soldiers in peoples houses, "requisition" supplies and food, confiscate arms and ammunition, mostly without recompense. Any citizens that objected were beaten, shot, or hanged as traitors. I'm sure the British governors thought that these things were their right. I'm sure the townspeople felt otherwise. One of my questions would be, "How much has actual history been revised by the victors in any conflict?" I honestly don't think it's possible for there to be any sources of information that are truly incorruptible.

I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or not on this one. I'll try and give you the benefit of the doubt though. I hope its not another reading error on your part, although I fear it might be just that. I did claim that the american revolutionaries were NOT terrorists.

You must have misread what I posted. Maybe if you read it over again, you'll see that (despite my natural impulse to the contrary) I'm not only agreeing with you, but expanding on your post to include a few items you hadn't mentioned. Christ on a fucking griddle, must you ALWAYS be so contrarian?

My apologies Nudiepants. I thought that might be the case, but it was a little unclear. Maybe I'm just not used to having you agree with me.... I should have gotten clarification before posting and will do so next time.

I read an article today about the causes of terrorism, specifically Islamic Suicide Terrorism. After Bush justified carpet-bombing two countries by saying, among other nonsense, that Muslim Terrorists "hate our freedom", the pentagon launched a study to find the root cause of Islamic terrorism, and they found that- surprise, sur-f***ing-prise- they aren't on a mission of death because we have First Amendment rights or can choose our own careers and spouses. They hate us for our policies, namely- military intervention and occupation.

Quote:

Imagine that. Isn't Muslim culture just so bizarre, primitive, and inscrutable? As strange as it is, they actually seem to dislike it when foreign militaries bomb, invade and occupy their countries, and Western powers interfere in their internal affairs by overthrowing and covertly manipulating their governments, imposing sanctions that kill hundreds of thousands of Muslim children, and arming their enemies. Therefore (of course), the solution to Terrorism is to interfere more in their countries by continuing to occupy, bomb, invade, assassinate, lawlessly imprison and control them, because that's the only way we can "Stay Safe". There are people over there who are angry at us for what we're doing in their world, so we need to do much more of it to eradicate the anger. That's the core logic of the War on Terror. How is that working out?

I love how the US government decides what's best for cultures that they have proven to know jacks**t about. Is this what makes the US "exceptional"? As in, enacting policies that are exceptionally stupid, assuming that a major goal of policy should be to protect it's own citizens?

If your country is being occupied, and your religion is under military seige on several fronts- are you a freedom fighter by retaliating, even if the methods of retaliation are as despicable as anything we might imagine?

I'd probably be pretty pissed off if the country of Uruguay sent some remote controlled predator drones over my house and blew my shit up with hellfire missiles. I imagine that if I wasn't killed, I'd become dedicated to terrorizing them in return, too.Obscenity is the last refuge of an inarticulate motherfucker.

It depends: are they really fighting for freedom, or trying to instill terror into a civilian population?Success is doing what you love, and doing it so well that someone will pay you for it.http://www.lushstories.com/fantasyfiction

I read an article today about the causes of terrorism, specifically Islamic Suicide Terrorism. After Bush justified carpet-bombing two countries by saying, among other nonsense, that Muslim Terrorists "hate our freedom", the pentagon launched a study to find the root cause of Islamic terrorism, and they found that- surprise, sur-f***ing-prise- they aren't on a mission of death because we have First Amendment rights or can choose our own careers and spouses. They hate us for our policies, namely- military intervention and occupation.

I love how the US government decides what's best for cultures that they have proven to know jacks**t about. Is this what makes the US "exceptional"? As in, enacting policies that are exceptionally stupid, assuming that a major goal of policy should be to protect it's own citizens?

If your country is being occupied, and your religion is under military seige on several fronts- are you a freedom fighter by retaliating, even if the methods of retaliation are as despicable as anything we might imagine?

Bang on the money. History has proven that democracy or any other type of cannot be forced on any country or population. It has to come from within, either through revolution or reforms. One thing you see very often is that the most undemocratic countries are the ones that are deeply religious and with poor infrastructure. Democracy in Europe was unheard of before the Enlightenment Age where you got a more secularised population and philosophy.

To take Afghanistan as an example. The infrastructure is worse than shit. There are tribes and villages that are so cut off that they are still predominantly white, dating back from when Alexander the Great invaded, almost 2500 years ago. You have one road going North to South and one going East to West that are the only functional land routes for supplies for an army. Ice road truckers are like a Sunday trip in comparison.

People live so isolated that they don't really give a shit who rules in Kabul. Why? Because it doesn't affect them. A democratically elected president is no different from a dictorish Taliban. Democracy is the least of their concern, because they won't see or hear about it on a day to day basis. What they will see and hear is the Western soldiers and the drones. The thought of a foreign invader will piss them off, simply because they notice it, and no one likes seeing a foreign flag on a military uniform in their country. "It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."

I believe the phrase freedom fighter should not be linked with what they are fighting for.But what objective they are out to defend is vital. Let me explain.Mujahideen fighting to win back a conservative backward looking Afghanistan can not be termed as freedom fighters as they are not defending FREEDOM.FREEDOM FIGHTER TO ME IS ONE WHO IS FIGHTING FOR TAKING HUMANITY FORWARD AND NOT BACKWARD.Defence of so called motherland which is intended to take humanity back in hstory can not be termed as FREEDOM FIGHTER.Freedom fighters should be associated with struggle to take human beings away from want, misery and from war.

Too simpole.Rather over simplified.Viet Cong fought to bring in Socialism which was/is against the advancement of human values.They were fighting against people some or large number of whom were from South Vietnam, aided by American but they were leading Vietnam back into a rural agrarian society.Now when Vietnam has dropped out of the so called Socialist system, it is advancing.If one looks at things from this angle, maybe its over simplification.

Too simpole.Rather over simplified.Viet Cong fought to bring in Socialism which was/is against the advancement of human values.They were fighting against people some or large number of whom were from South Vietnam, aided by American but they were leading Vietnam back into a rural agrarian society.Now when Vietnam has dropped out of the so called Socialist system, it is advancing.If one looks at things from this angle, maybe its over simplification.

Terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology. Governments use terrorism as well. See Rumsfeld's 'Shock and Awe' in the invasion of Iraq or Israel's 'Operation cast lead'.

Right now the biggest war crimes problem we have right now is in Syria. The government is was and has always been a terrorist regime and not surprisingly, so are many of the opposition fighters.

Dropping bombs from planes on civilian populations is just as much terrorism as suicide bombing is. And trying to dress that type of military action up as 'acceptable' is one of the reasons that we find it rather hard to convince certain parts of the world that we are morally in the right.

Given the history of colonialism in the region, the West can hardly claim as much moral superiority here as you seem to imagine. Iran is in the shape it is today because the US decided to rub out the democratic government in 1953 and replace it with a dictator. Huge numbers of people died during the US occupation of the Philippines, etc. etc.

And one of the major complaints from the rest of the world is that the US still spends its time telling the rest of the world how superior it is morally and never gets round to acknowledging past sins, let alone saying sorry.

George W. Bush's torture policy was a form of terrorism. He has tarnished US prestige and probably made it impossible to actually put the remaining perpetrators of 9/11 on trial in anything remotely approximating a fair trial uless the US is willing to put the former President and his staff on trial as well.

I am also rather tired of certain US politicians such as Rudy Guiliani posturing about terrorism when they spent years helping raise millions of dollars for the IRA through NORAID.

Rather than lecturing the rest of the world about the evils of terrorism as if the US has unique expertise, it would be rather more effective if the US would spend some time listening to countries that have a longer experience of terrorism and have brought their terrorist issues to an end. Taking advice from the Israelis on terrorism is like taking advice on stopping drinking from a chronic alcoholic. The UK tried the same model at the start of the troubles and it only made matters much worse. When we switched to the West German model in '76, the so-called 'criminalization' policy, the number of deaths dropped to a third and stayed there or lower.

And before people get on their high horse and start shouting 'anti-american'. I'm one of the people who gets called on to clean up the mess left by the idiot neo-cons and their predecessors.

Terrorists use tactics like chopping the arms off of 18 merchants and their families because the merchants had shops on US FOBs. Terrorists duct tape a guys hands to a steering wheel and tell him if he doesnt drive the VBIED at the gate, his family dies. Good thing for us he wanted to live, operators saved his family and we got the TERRORISTS.

Terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology. Governments use terrorism as well. See Rumsfeld's 'Shock and Awe' in the invasion of Iraq or Israel's 'Operation cast lead'.

Right now the biggest war crimes problem we have right now is in Syria. The government is was and has always been a terrorist regime and not surprisingly, so are many of the opposition fighters.

Dropping bombs from planes on civilian populations is just as much terrorism as suicide bombing is. And trying to dress that type of military action up as 'acceptable' is one of the reasons that we find it rather hard to convince certain parts of the world that we are morally in the right.

Given the history of colonialism in the region, the West can hardly claim as much moral superiority here as you seem to imagine. Iran is in the shape it is today because the US decided to rub out the democratic government in 1953 and replace it with a dictator. Huge numbers of people died during the US occupation of the Philippines, etc. etc.

And one of the major complaints from the rest of the world is that the US still spends its time telling the rest of the world how superior it is morally and never gets round to acknowledging past sins, let alone saying sorry.

George W. Bush's torture policy was a form of terrorism. He has tarnished US prestige and probably made it impossible to actually put the remaining perpetrators of 9/11 on trial in anything remotely approximating a fair trial uless the US is willing to put the former President and his staff on trial as well.

I am also rather tired of certain US politicians such as Rudy Guiliani posturing about terrorism when they spent years helping raise millions of dollars for the IRA through NORAID.

Rather than lecturing the rest of the world about the evils of terrorism as if the US has unique expertise, it would be rather more effective if the US would spend some time listening to countries that have a longer experience of terrorism and have brought their terrorist issues to an end. Taking advice from the Israelis on terrorism is like taking advice on stopping drinking from a chronic alcoholic. The UK tried the same model at the start of the troubles and it only made matters much worse. When we switched to the West German model in '76, the so-called 'criminalization' policy, the number of deaths dropped to a third and stayed there or lower.

And before people get on their high horse and start shouting 'anti-american'. I'm one of the people who gets called on to clean up the mess left by the idiot neo-cons and their predecessors.

You absolutely right.But what I thought best to lay down the parameter to differentiate between freedom fighter and terrorists.The terrorism may have been or might be persued by states, like USA, Syria or those so called Mujahideen who behead the dead.IF THE EFFORT IS TO TAKE HUMANITY & HUMAN VALUES OF PEACE, PROSPERITY AND FREEDOM, FORWARD, ITS A FREEDOM FIGHT.IT MAY BE STATE SPONCERED OR NON STATE FIGHTERS.

Terrorists use tactics like chopping the arms off of 18 merchants and their families because the merchants had shops on US FOBs. Terrorists duct tape a guys hands to a steering wheel and tell him if he doesnt drive the VBIED at the gate, his family dies. Good thing for us he wanted to live, operators saved his family and we got the TERRORISTS.

I believe the phrase freedom fighter should not be linked with what they are fighting for.But what objective they are out to defend is vital. Let me explain.Mujahideen fighting to win back a conservative backward looking Afghanistan can not be termed as freedom fighters as they are not defending FREEDOM.FREEDOM FIGHTER TO ME IS ONE WHO IS FIGHTING FOR TAKING HUMANITY FORWARD AND NOT BACKWARD.Defence of so called motherland which is intended to take humanity back in hstory can not be termed as FREEDOM FIGHTER.Freedom fighters should be associated with struggle to take human beings away from want, misery and from war.

So who is to decide what brings humanity forth and not back? The US? Is it so that every ideology that wants to bring in the Western values and democracy is the "right" one? Who are we to say what brings prosperity to a certain country? Democracy seems to be the better pick for us here in the west, but what right do we have to choose what type of rule they should have in Afghanistan, Iraq and any other state? That type of know it all arrogance is what has caused more shit in this world than any other ideology. This so called "good intentions"(as long as we agree that they are good intentions) have made many a highway to hell. Latest ones have been Iraq and Afghanistan.

The difference between terrorists and freedom fighters are as have been stated that a freedom fighter will go for military targets, while terrorists will go for civilian targets. This means that armies can be terrorists too. What is considered one of the first real terrorists attacks was after all the British bombing of Copenhagen in 1812(cba to look up the right year, but somewhere around that. At least during the Napoleonic wars). The way the Allies and the Axis decided to systematically bomb cities and civilians is by this definition also terrorism. "It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."

To well made male: ever responded to a domestic in progress with numerous weapons in the house and the line went dead to 911? My guys and girls will be going home at the end of shift, thats all I care about.

So who is to decide what brings humanity forth and not back? The US? Is it so that every ideology that wants to bring in the Western values and democracy is the "right" one? Who are we to say what brings prosperity to a certain country? Democracy seems to be the better pick for us here in the west, but what right do we have to choose what type of rule they should have in Afghanistan, Iraq and any other state? That type of know it all arrogance is what has caused more shit in this world than any other ideology. This so called "good intentions"(as long as we agree that they are good intentions) have made many a highway to hell. Latest ones have been Iraq and Afghanistan.

The difference between terrorists and freedom fighters are as have been stated that a freedom fighter will go for military targets, while terrorists will go for civilian targets. This means that armies can be terrorists too. What is considered one of the first real terrorists attacks was after all the British bombing of Copenhagen in 1812(cba to look up the right year, but somewhere around that. At least during the Napoleonic wars). The way the Allies and the Axis decided to systematically bomb cities and civilians is by this definition also terrorism.

Its not that the values of West and USA determines what takes humanity forward.The forward march of humanity is seen if the values of peace, freedom, equality, fraternity (in short Democracy) are preserved or enhanced.Coz these values are cherised by a great majorit of mankind.Coz these values are taking our economies forward.Coz they give us equal rights to debate & discuss, disagree and still tolerate each other in a social system.Coz these values prohibit us to cut dead enemies head.Coz these values allow us to be either belivers or non believers in any faith and still be equal.Coz these values respect our disagreements as much as agreements.

This is what Mandela said at his 1964 trial about his organisation's adoption of violence as a tactic:

"Four forms of violence were possible. There is sabotage, there is guerrilla warfare, there is terrorism, and there is open revolution. We chose to adopt the first method and to exhaust it before taking any other decision.

In the light of our political background the choice was a logical one. Sabotage did not involve loss of life, and it offered the best hope for future race relations. Bitterness would be kept to a minimum and, if the policy bore fruit, democratic government could become a reality. This is what we felt at the time, and this is what we said in our Manifesto (Exhibit AD):

'We of Umkhonto we Sizwe have always sought to achieve liberation without bloodshed and civil clash. We hope, even at this late hour, that our first actions will awaken everyone to a realization of the disastrous situation to which the Nationalist policy is leading. We hope that we will bring the Government and its supporters to their senses before it is too late, so that both the Government and its policies can be changed before matters reach the desperate state of civil war.' "

Terrorism as can be seen from this is a tactic, and those who use it are terrorists. Governments can be terrorists. It is not the cause that determines whether you are a terrorist but how you try to achieve your aims.

If we need examples of each, Mr Mandela is a freedom fighter, almost the poster child for it. He fought a regime dedicated to the enslavement of his kind, I have always wondered why forces were not sent to smash aparthied like we did the nazis. Ill get many responses for.that line, and most would probably be right. But terrorists, like the ones I have fought, I see no honor in the way they fight, using women and children as Shields...sending a four year old to ask Americans for food with a.grenade in his pants...thats a.terrorist. I have only killed those who tried to killme, and none were females or children. Maybe Im lucky to have had such clear cut and slow enemies

This is what Mandela said at his 1964 trial about his organisation's adoption of violence as a tactic:

"Four forms of violence were possible. There is sabotage, there is guerrilla warfare, there is terrorism, and there is open revolution. We chose to adopt the first method and to exhaust it before taking any other decision.

In the light of our political background the choice was a logical one. Sabotage did not involve loss of life, and it offered the best hope for future race relations. Bitterness would be kept to a minimum and, if the policy bore fruit, democratic government could become a reality. This is what we felt at the time, and this is what we said in our Manifesto (Exhibit AD):

Mandela's techniques were quite obviously commensurate with those employed by the oppressors. They were certainly more than Ghandian peaceful resistance. But they were not open warfare. But the South African state was also limited in their approach.

The situation in Syria is much harder as Assad's government began its response with terrorism and so the response to Assad's terrorism has included terrorism.

Israel was born in terrorism against the Palestinians, what we now call ethnic cleansing and not surprisingly the response has been terrorism. In recent years there has been rather more violence aimed at civilians being ordered by Netanyahu than at Israeli civilians.

One of the reasons why the main Iranian opposition does not want the West to support the MEK is that they feel it will be counterproductive in the long run.

When desperate people resort to terrorism to achieve their ends it is an act of desperation. When a government does the same it is undermining the legitimacy of the state. Netanyahu, George W. Bush and Assad all deserve the condemnation of history for having resorted to terrorism. In all three cases more to prop up their own personal prestige than to protect the security of the state. Netanyahu heads a fragile coalition and wants to appear tough. Bush was the idiot who ignored the warnings about Bin Laden, prefering 'My Pet Goat' instead. Assad is just a tinpot dictator.

Its not that the values of West and USA determines what takes humanity forward.The forward march of humanity is seen if the values of peace, freedom, equality, fraternity (in short Democracy) are preserved or enhanced.

Quote:

Coz these values are cherised by a great majorit of mankind.

Only by those of us who are content with our general lives, that we can feed our family and we can walk down the street safely. In countries where they suffer from hunger and poverty, they couldn't give two shits about being able to go and vote. Sadly today, that is the majority of mankind.

Quote:

Coz these values are taking our economies forward.

Says who? Why is it the western economies are the ones doing best compared to former colonies like Africa? Because they were exploited and still are exploited as thouroghly as possible. Democracy has fuck all to do about it. Look at China. They are a totalitarian dictatorship, yet they are becoming the biggest economy in the world and the standard of living is increasing more and more. Sure, there are a lot of poverty struck people, but China is fast becoming too expensive to be a production country due to the wages and overall standard of living rising.

Quote:

Coz they give us equal rights to debate & discuss, disagree and still tolerate each other in a social system.

A totalitarian regime and freedom of speech aren't exclusive. Freedom of speech doesn't mean that you have the right to vote.

Quote:

Coz these values prohibit us to cut dead enemies head.

The values of democracy does not prohibit us to cut enemies dead. If that was the case then a true democracy, as well as it's people, would just sit still and watch as an invading force marches in. Try advocating people to put their weapons down once a foreign army invades your country. Good luck...

Quote:

Coz these values allow us to be either belivers or non believers in any faith and still be equal.

Still possible without a democracy. All you need is freedom of religion. And rest assured, that in the US although certain religious beliefs are equal on paper, they're not in practice when it comes to the mob. It's human nature, People get denied jobs simply because of their name being Mohammed. Is that equality?

Quote:

Coz these values respect our disagreements as much as agreements.

Tribal councils in Afghanistan where they have no democracy or ostrochise people not being part of their religion usually offers more sensible debates based on reason than the ones you see here on Lush or any other fora.

These values of yours can't be pushed on other people from the west or any other direction, it has to come from within, otherwise those that hold the power will have no problem branding the ideas as propaganda from their enemies that has no other plan than to destabilize the country. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan. They are plunging into inefficient leadership that isn't condoned by the people, simply because it's easy to fire up the masses that the current power holders are "Allies and puppets of the warmongers in the west".

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."

If we need examples of each, Mr Mandela is a freedom fighter, almost the poster child for it. He fought a regime dedicated to the enslavement of his kind, I have always wondered why forces were not sent to smash aparthied like we did the nazis. Ill get many responses for.that line, and most would probably be right. But terrorists, like the ones I have fought, I see no honor in the way they fight, using women and children as Shields...sending a four year old to ask Americans for food with a.grenade in his pants...thats a.terrorist. I have only killed those who tried to killme, and none were females or children. Maybe Im lucky to have had such clear cut and slow enemies

You are right you are lucky you got it that clear. Because there are plenty of evidence of the other kind, US Military Raping kids, they did it in Vietnam and in Iraq properly also in Afghanistan (Raping a Iraqi girl 12 or 14 years old while they were drunk and high), killing civilians for fun(black water and special ops) and shooting after them just for fun, and let's not forget for every Drone strike there is plenty of civilians killed every time. let's not paint the US so nice and pink, as they describe everyone else as Terrorist, they do exactly the same, so that most mean US Military is Terrorism/Terrorists.

"One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter." <-- true all the way (including US Military) When we lose the right to be different, we lose the privilege to be free.Charles Evans Hughes

Both the American people and nations that censor the internet should understand that our government is committed to helping promote internet freedom.Hillary Clinton I love this quote, no country in the world has put more into censorship, control and surveillance, then USA the last 10 years. lol

Mandela's death got me to thinking about these things again. Mainly what's been on my mind is the people who are quick to remind that Mandela encouraged the use of violence in the pursuit of equality. Many called him a terrorist. As has been stated everywhere at least twice, the government of my own country classified him as a terrorist until just a few years ago.

Furthermore, I think about the supposed virtue of peaceful resistance, and the vilification of the use of violent force. Let nobody miss the fact that in almost all cases- except for the naive group-hug crowd- those who denounce violent resistance are perfectly fine with a government that rules by the gun. To put it more clearly: the promotion of peaceful protest for basic rights is tainted when promoted by those who are responsible for and complicit in the oppression to begin with.

As African-American Novelist James Baldwin once put it:

Quote:

The real reason that nonviolence is considered to be a virtue in Negroes—is that white men do not want their lives, their self-image, or their property threatened. One wishes they would say so more often.

MalcolmX understood this. MLK understood this as well, especially against the backdrop of US-led aggression in Vietnam.

We all need to understand this, especially as we reflect on the death of a great leader, who only sought to free his people.

When the racist Botha offered to release Mandela from prison if only he would renounce violence within his movement, his response was,

This reminds me of the old quote (and I can't remember the original source) "History is written by the victors." A clear example can be found in our nation's own history. During the war fought between 1861 and 1865 (you call it what you please, I have my own thoughts on that too) Charles Quantrill and his men were labeled "renegades" (the term of the time meaning terrorists) because they burned down the small town (at that time) of Lawrenceville, Kansas. HOWEVER, Philip Sheridan whose cavalry laid waste to the entire Shenandoah Valley, and William Sherman; whose army cut a ten mile wide swathe of destruction through the state of Georgia that culminated in the burning of the city of Atlanta were? HAILED AS HEROES! Some distinctions are hard to make.

You are right you are lucky you got it that clear. Because there are plenty of evidence of the other kind, US Military Raping kids, they did it in Vietnam and in Iraq properly also in Afghanistan (Raping a Iraqi girl 12 or 14 years old while they were drunk and high), killing civilians for fun(black water and special ops) and shooting after them just for fun, and let's not forget for every Drone strike there is plenty of civilians killed every time. let's not paint the US so nice and pink, as they describe everyone else as Terrorist, they do exactly the same, so that most mean US Military is Terrorism/Terrorists.

"One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter." <-- true all the way (including US Military)

WHOA! I put up with that crap from that treasonous lowlife Fonda because I had no ability at that time to bring actual facts to light. as to the "they raped children in Vietnam" trash, criminals have been in every army man has ever assembled and such acts were in the past common place. Later, the military turned a blind eye to it. ARVN's and PF's would bring out hookers to service a platoon once in a while in Vietnam, but getting caught with them would get you thrown in Long Binh jail! Rape was not common place it was a rare happening at the worst ...ON THE AMERICAN SIDE of the war. Perpetrators would be tried. convicted and sent first to a military prison and then transferred to a Federal pen ( I know, my last year was spent as a brig guard.) The NVA however had NO compunction about "cowboying a co" which mean kidnapping her and taking her to their base camp in the jungle, a cave, tunnel complex or somewhere in the Que Son mountains and using her as a slave in every sense of the word. Get your facts straight or put a lid on it! But DO NOT think your allegations alone are worth putting up here. Show me proof! Next, who's little convert are you? Oh, I forgot, that would require HONESTY and you don't DO that do you?

WHOA! I put up with that crap from that treasonous lowlife Fonda because I had no ability at that time to bring actual facts to light. as to the "they raped children in Vietnam" trash, criminals have been in every army man has ever assembled and such acts were in the past common place. Later, the military turned a blind eye to it. ARVN's and PF's would bring out hookers to service a platoon once in a while in Vietnam, but getting caught with them would get you thrown in Long Binh jail! Rape was not common place it was a rare happening at the worst ...ON THE AMERICAN SIDE of the war. Perpetrators would be tried. convicted and sent first to a military prison and then transferred to a Federal pen ( I know, my last year was spent as a brig guard.) The NVA however had NO compunction about "cowboying a co" which mean kidnapping her and taking her to their base camp in the jungle, a cave, tunnel complex or somewhere in the Que Son mountains and using her as a slave in every sense of the word. Get your facts straight or put a lid on it! But DO NOT think your allegations alone are worth putting up here. Show me proof! Next, who's little convert are you? Oh, I forgot, that would require HONESTY and you don't DO that do you?

A Royal Marine has recently been sentenced to 10 yrs for killing an injured Afghan insurgent, if he'd been killed with the first shot that would be ok, it makes you think doesn't it. In a war theatre the mental stress must be unimaginable, kill or be killed, seeing friends and comrades killed.I don't know how many deaths, if any, that Afghan caused or would have gone on to cause but 10 yrs seems harsh to me.

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.